Re: [NTG-context] knuth

[Alan Braslau via ntg-context <ntg-context@ntg.nl>]

On 05/06/23 05/06/23, 08:50, luigi scarso wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 15:18, Alan Braslau via ntg-context 
> <ntg-context@ntg.nl <mailto:ntg-context@ntg.nl>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     On 04/06/23 04/06/23, 15:57, Berend de Boer via ntg-context wrote:
>      >> Probably some on this list already checked how well chatgpt answers
>      >> questions about domains one knows well and then probably noted
>     that in
>      >> spite of impressive wording, one can run into quite incorrect
>     answers.
>      >
>      > I've been using it for ConTeXt, and to be honest, it works amazingly
>      > well. It hallucinates sometimes, but it's such a time saver.
> 
>     Maybe someone should try asking it to write documentation/manuals?
> 
>     As a teacher, we are accustomed to seeing Google/Wikipedia/etc.
>     cut-and-paste nonsense; now, this nonsense appears more polished, and
>     our students are none the wiser. Saves them time, too! ;-)
> 
>     Who said: "the best way to economize thought is not to think at all"?
> 
> 
> 
> not all is bad: sometimes a textual description can replace a formalized 
> notation, e.g.
> https://fosstodon.org/@tao@mathstodon.xyz/110250604086213386 
> <https://fosstodon.org/@tao@mathstodon.xyz/110250604086213386>
> I can imagine similar examples with tables.
> Of course a very high level text is often ambiguous (as some kind of 
> formalized grammars, after all)
> but  the example shows that in these cases  it is better to fix 
> something already almost ok than  to typeset it from scratch.

As an Artificial Intelligence machine, I cannot speculate why it is so 
hard to write correct LaTeX that does not need to be tweaked in order to 
give an aesthetic result. However, from monitoring the ConTeXt mailing 
list, I have observed that most problems seem to have an answer that 
work correctly when used correctly. In the rare case that ConTeXt users 
report something not working correctly, this usually is revealed to be a 
small typographic error in the macros appearing following a major 
internal code rewrite. I have recorded in all of these rare cases a 
pattern that reoccurs repeatedly with the phrase "fixed in next upload". 
I cannot speculate as to how such fixes appear so rapidly and so 
consistently. My analytical artificial intelligence is thrown off by 
seemingly irrelevant statements about listening to this or that CD. What 
could this possibly mean?

In supplement, I have not yet deciphered what is meant by the acronym 
MWE that also repeatedly occurs. This does not appear to fit with 
something that is reported as being broken.

(Written with the assistance of ChatGPT.)

Alan
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : https://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________